Ridon Criticizes Alleged Request Raised During Hearing

House prosecutor Terry Ridon strongly criticized testimony presented during the impeachment proceedings after a Commission on Audit (COA) witness described an alleged request involving the audit of confidential funds.

During the hearing, state auditor Atty. Roderick Wamil testified that then Department of Education spokesperson Michael Poa, now part of the defense panel, and Office of the Vice President chief of staff Zuleika Lopez allegedly asked whether COA could issue an audit query instead of an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) if auditors found irregularities.

Reacting to the testimony, Ridon described the alleged request as improper.

Witness Describes Alleged Meeting

According to Wamil's testimony, the discussion took place while COA was reviewing confidential fund expenditures.

Wamil told the tribunal that the alleged request concerned the type of audit document that would be issued if auditors identified irregular findings.

His statements were presented as part of the prosecution's evidence during the proceedings.

The defense has the opportunity to challenge or rebut the testimony.

Difference Between an Audit Query and an AOM

An Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) is typically issued by COA auditors to formally communicate observations or deficiencies identified during an audit and to request explanations from the audited agency.

An audit query, by contrast, is generally used to obtain clarification or additional information before audit observations are finalized.

Whether either document is appropriate depends on the specific circumstances of the audit and applicable COA rules.

The hearing included discussion of these distinctions as part of the witness's testimony.

Proceedings Continue

The testimony forms part of the ongoing impeachment proceedings involving confidential funds.

No tribunal has yet made findings regarding the allegations discussed during the hearing.

Both the prosecution and the defense continue to present evidence and legal arguments.

Why This Story Matters

The exchange highlights the importance of established audit procedures in government accountability.

The tribunal will ultimately determine what weight, if any, to give the testimony after considering all evidence presented by both sides.

Key Takeaways

• Terry Ridon criticized testimony concerning an alleged request related to COA audit procedures.

• State auditor Roderick Wamil testified that Michael Poa and Zuleika Lopez allegedly requested an audit query instead of an Audit Observation Memorandum if irregularities were found.

• The testimony remains subject to challenge during the proceedings.

• No final findings have been issued by the tribunal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the COA witness testify?

The witness testified that Michael Poa and Zuleika Lopez allegedly asked whether COA could issue an audit query instead of an Audit Observation Memorandum if irregularities were identified. This testimony is part of the ongoing proceedings.

What is an Audit Observation Memorandum?

An Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) is a formal document used by the Commission on Audit to communicate audit observations and request explanations from the audited agency.

Has the tribunal ruled on the testimony?

No. The testimony is part of the evidence presented during ongoing proceedings, and no final ruling has been issued.

Editorial Note

This article reports testimony presented during ongoing impeachment proceedings and reactions from House prosecutor Terry Ridon. The alleged meeting and statements described by the witness remain subject to evaluation by the tribunal. The defense disputes aspects of the prosecution's case, and no final determination has been made.

“COA Findings Enough?” Rep. Chua Believes Case Holds Even Without Key Witness

BBM Watch|duterte-legacy|Senate Circus|House of Representa’Thieves

November 22, 2025•3 min read

Even without a key statement from a supposed witness, a lawmaker believes the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte still has legs to stand on.

Manila 3rd District Representative Joel Chua expressed confidence that the case remains intact, citing available documentation and findings as sufficient to establish probable cause. According to him, the absence of a statement from Ramil Madriaga does not automatically weaken the complaint.

“Kahit po wala ang statement ni [Ramil] Madriaga… as far as probable cause is concerned, ay tatayo pa rin po ito,” Chua said during an interview.

The lawmaker pointed to the Commission on Audit (COA) Notice of Disallowance related to confidential funds as a key basis for the case. For him, the documentation alone already provides enough ground to proceed.

📌 Here’s what this really means…

At its core, this isn’t just about one witness—it’s about whether documents alone can carry the weight of an impeachment case.

In legal and political battles, witnesses often bring narrative and credibility. But documents—especially from institutions like COA—carry their own authority. The question now becomes: Is paper evidence enough to convince both lawmakers and the public?

⚖️ This raises a bigger issue…

This situation highlights a recurring tension in Philippine politics:
👉 Institutional findings vs. political interpretation

On one side, there are official audit findings. On the other, there’s the interpretation of those findings—whether they indicate wrongdoing or simply administrative lapses.

And that’s where things get complicated.

Because in impeachment proceedings, the battlefield is not just legal—it’s also political perception.

👀 Public Reaction

Online reactions have been mixed.

Some believe that official audit findings should be taken seriously and deserve full investigation. Others argue that jumping to conclusions without full testimony risks turning the process into speculation rather than justice.

In short:
👉 Trust in institutions vs. demand for complete evidence

🦅 Why this matters

Whether one supports or questions the complaint, one thing is clear:

👉 The strength of any case depends not just on documents—but on how convincingly they are presented, challenged, and defended.

In a democracy, accountability matters—but so does fairness.

And as this unfolds, the real test won’t just be legal—it will be public trust.

🙏 BIBLE VERSE (Faith Anchor)

Proverbs 18:17
“The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.”

P712 Million Odette Aid: Sino ang Umipit sa Pera ng Taumbayan?

Halos apat na taon matapos ang hagupit ng Super Typhoon Odette, nananatiling sariwa ang tanong ng mga taga-Cebu:

Nasaan ang ₱712 million para sa mga nawalan ng tahanan?

In a strongly worded appeal, Cebu Gov. Gwen Baricuatro has asked the National Housing Authority to restore the aid intended for 72,209 families devastated in 2021. The fund — originally meant for Emergency Housing Assistance — was shockingly returned to the National Treasury after a flawed process under the previous Capitol leadership.

Ang mas masakit?
Habang nakatengga ang bilyon-bilyong ayuda, libo-libong Cebuanos ang nananatiling nakatira sa:

• sira-sirang bubong

• tent na tinamaan na ng apat na bagyo

• barong-barong na hindi makayanan ang ulan

Odette damaged 1.1 million homes across Central Visayas.
410 ang namatay.
708,000 houses destroyed in Cebu alone.

Pero ang perang pangtulong?
Naglakbay papunta sa Treasury.
Hindi sa tao.

The previous administration attempted to channel the funds through a system that violated guidelines, triggering audit red flags and causing the NHA to reject the release.

Now, Gov. Baricuatro is demanding a reset:
Harmonize the list. Verify the beneficiaries. Release the funds directly.

At dito pumapasok ang tunay na issue:
May pwersang pumigil noon.
At may pwersang umaawat pa rin ngayon.

In times like these, we remember the scripture:
“Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is within your power to act.” (Proverbs 3:27)

Kung mayroon mang panahon na kailangan ng aksyon,
ito na iyon.

The people waited for four years.
The people deserve justice.
And the people deserve what is rightfully theirs.